Frist: Guard troops the best short-term border fix

CNN ^ | May 14, 2006 | CNN

[Soul Seeker]

Always nice to see people that are incapable of recognizing the need for security on our borders peddle cheap inaccurate character portrayals in a futile attempt to silence the MAJORITY of the people that are furious with the President and Congress over this issue. Rest assured, the only thing you accomplish is creating a more intractable position on the issue.

In addition to National Guard troops, the Senate leader said he also supports "a wall, a structure, where people can't go under, over, around or through." But he said that any concrete wall should not run the length of the entire border, and that other measures should also be employed.

Frist proposes we leave a "door" open for them to walk through then? Swell. That will solve the problem.

Oh, and would someone in Nebraska please remove the traitor posing as am American citizen from his Senate seat? he is never going to be President, no matter what he has convinced himself of.

[Owen]

>>
Send the SeeBees to the border then. Better yet, all the Mexicans we catch should be paid minimum wage, taxed and forced to work on the wall for six months. After the six months, we give them their pay and fly them to Chiapas.
>>

And when there is a lawsuit that results with the obvious violation of "cruel and unusual punishment" (who would call this typical punishment?), who will pay the billion dollar judgement. Right, me.

[bcsco]

Bush has had his head in the sand, mainly because he's not running again and hasn't watched polls on the issue; his mind on immigration was made up long ago. It's only been recently that other GOP leaders have felt sufficient heat to bring the issue to bear. Now, they've probably gotten to him and insisted he do something. So, he's going on National TV.

Well, that's fine. But it had better be good and it had better be permanent; not an election year ploy. Otherwise, your ending remark will come true very soon.

The National Guard is not a good permanent solution but it may help in the short term. What's needed is a wall, and we need a get-tough policy on employers. Those two things alone should provide a marked improvement in the situation.

[X918]

[Darkwolf377]

Thanks for your continuing efforts to bring civility and facts to this discussion, which has been largely free of both on both sides.

I disagree with you about the National Guard. As I understand it it is a temporary augmenting of the existing guards AND there will be replacement of those agents burdened by desk work, freeing them to get back in the field, too. As a temporary fix, this is all well and good.

I am more pleased that Congress is getting the sticks out and are moving towards building more walls.

Having said all that, we have fences now. Will this just turn into a situation where instead of running over/under a fence, they will simply head west and come into California by boats chartered by Vincente Fox? ;) OK laugh, but look at Florida and Cuba.

I can't stop being amused by the way this has suddenly become issue #1 around. Whenever that's mentioned, there is usually a chorus of "It's ALWAYS been MY number 1 issue!" But an intellectually honest person can't say that's been the case for most people arguing about it for more than a month or two.

It's an issue that needs addressing; I don't see the need to pretend it's not just the latest hot topic, though. When, for example, CIndy Sheehan was down in Crawford, I don't recall the Anti-Illegal brigade showing up down there to protest THIS subject. This all seems to have been stirred up by the Dubai ports situation, but I'm not going to venture into that territory. The connection seems pretty obvious to me, but rather than debate that clear connection people will just get overly dramatic and not actually discuss the matter, so forget it. But if you follow the sequence of events, well, it's there. I mean, this issue didn't come out of the Miers nomination.

[308MBR]

You're paying billions now for health care, education and welfare for illegals. We may as well pay and not have to worry so much about uninsured drivers, among many other issues.

Build the wall. Or are we really worried about a steady supply of cheap reefer so more kids can be busted by The Man?

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

Yeah. If China was successful with that, and we're not copying to protect our borders, that tells me that none of the scumbags want the border to be protected. Right now, we just have a flim-flam excuse going on, only there to appease...

[Salvation]

Bill O'Reilly has been saying this for three years plus!

[oldbill]

Don't kid yourselves - this is all for show.

The Guard will NOT be used for any enforcement. They will be asked to "support" the other federal agencies, like provide logistics and transportation, communications, and some surveillance. Real troops patrolling the border won't happen. But it will give Chertoff and Julie Myers a bunch of photo ops and all the Senators and the White House will be making a big deal on all the TV talk shows.

The alien border crossers will have a higher probability of running into an ACLU lawyer or a Catholic bishop than a real soldier with a loaded weapon.

And no one will give a damn about the poor Guardsman who will be losing out on promotions or even his job just to provide video bites for those who have proven for years that they really don't give a damn about stopping the flood of another permanent welfare class.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

You are absolutely right. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Bush, himself, led the events along as such...

[oldbill]

O'Reilly doesn't even know what the Guard is or what the law allows it to do.

It is just another servant class for guys like him to do dirty work with. If he is so anxious to use the Guard, let the draft dodger join up himself and give up his hundred million dollar paycheck.

[Gondring]

Are we going to be satisfied when nobody cares to sign up for National Guard duty because it's used as the Executive Police Force?

[bcsco]

Immigration has been an issue since before the Dubai Ports situation. I believe what triggered its immediacy was the plan proposed by the Senate, along with the recent marches and demonstrations that got everyone's attention. All this brought it onto the front burner in everyone's minds.

There's no doubt that a fence would cause a relocation of illegal trafficking. However, it will be much harder for them to come by boat than by simply walking across the border. For one the cost will go up significantly to them. It will also become much more dangerous. On the other hand, it should be somewhat easier for us to monitor.

If your example of Florida and Cuba is a legitimate comparison for what will occur if a wall is built, I'll take it. Consider how many boats are turned away each year compared to how many currently come across our border daily. I'd say that would be an improvement.

On the other hand, if we also enact/enforce stringent laws against U. S. employers, then the flow of illegal immigration would take a turn for the good anyway. There'd be no good reason to come should the job bank seriously dry up.

[X918]

[Darkwolf377]

Good points. I should have added that I, too, consider the shift to a sea-centric flow of immigrants ;) a good thing, for the reason you state.

[Reily]

To all
In principle I think the National Guard on the border is a good idea. If they actually do more then logistical support, it will have to be well thought out for the following reasons.

I guarantee at some point there will be a gunfight between guardsmen and coyotes (not the 4 legged animals BUT the people smugglers!). It will either happen accidentally or be provoked by:
a) drug smugglers because we are interrupting their normal business routine.
b) Coyotes for the same reason,
c) Incompetent Mexican military
d) Corrupt & Incompetent Mexican military
e) US radical left,
f) US radical left + Mexican left (Also this would be a great opportunity for Chavez, North Korea & Iran to provoke something to keep us busy!),
g) any combination of the above.

Unfortunately my personal prediction is their will be some gunfight somewhere and we will lose our nerve and withdraw the guard. (Also remember the Marine patrol that accidentally shot the the young sheep herder, be prepared for those kind of incidents and that kind of blow back !)
Guards will need legal protection and I don't believe the political will exists to do this the right way.

Also none of this will survive a Democrat(Hillary) administration.
Thats why logistical support is probably all that will occur.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, told ABC, "I think it's more likely than not" that it will be law by the November midterm elections.

Is that so? Does that include your massive scamnesty too Joe? The House has been insisting for weeks it's not on the table with them so I guess we'll have to wait and see about that.

[FairOpinion]

That's why what we need, is wall/fence, more border patrol, and hire contractors to do the support jobs, to enforce strict border security, NOT National Guards on the border.

Another thing we need is, a requirement, that for government assistance, you need proof of citizenship, or legal residence.

If the above two things are done, I don't see any reason for not allowing the guest worker program to go through, that way we stemmed the flow of illegals, and are able to keep track of workers coming here legally, if there is work for them to do. There is no way, we will drag out of their homes and deport 12 million people. But if we stem the flow, the ones who work, can do so legally, and they will pay taxes, social security, etc.

[Reily]

I agree

[FairOpinion]

And note those who keep saying that the border security issue with Mexico is a "national security" problem don't seem to worry about securing the Canadian border, even though that is how the 9-11 hijackers got in and it is currently recognized as a haven for terrorists.

Report: Canada a 'haven for terrorists'

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1632112/posts


The State Department is sending an icy blast to our northern neighbors, blaming Canada's liberal immigration and asylum policies for allowing terrorists to set up anti-U.S. operations north of the border.


The State Department says in its annual report on global terrorism that Canada is becoming a haven for terrorists. ''Terrorists have capitalized on liberal Canadian immigration and asylum policies to enjoy safe haven, raise funds, arrange logistical support, and plan terrorist attacks,'' the report says.


South of the border, however, looks all sweetness and light. Mexico ''works closely with the United States on all aspects of counterterrorism, security and prevention,'' the diplomats said. The views from Foggy Bottom contrast with the rhetoric on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are mapping plans for a wall along the Mexican border, but not along the Canadian side.


=====

The Bush Administration is focusing on the National Security issue, which is the immediate critical issue -- to keep terrorists from entering from either the US or Mexico.

The illegal immigration problem from Mexico is a problem, but NOT an immediate crisis, and it is also being addressed, that's why President Bush is pushing a comprehensive immigration bill. Instead of being glad, that it is being addressed, some are angry aboutit, even though they claim that is what they want.